Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry ... vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2222 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 February, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                     WRIT APPEAL No.201 of 2025

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):

Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri A.

Ananthasen Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Mines and

Geology Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and

Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue, for respondent No.2.

2. This Intra-Court appeal assails the order of learned

Single Judge passed in W.P.No.1722 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

Government by communication dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure-P2)

granted the contract for excavation of sand to respondent No.4.

In turn, respondent No.4 granted the work to the present

appellant. However, the term of said contract was over in June,

2024. The appellant preferred representations before respondent

No.4 and the Government seeking extension of the contract.

Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting its prayer for

consideration of representations on the ground of locus standi.

The appellant being a Tribal Society has a right to undertake the

said work.

4. The other side opposed the prayer and submits that the

basic contract was between the Government and respondent

No.4. The appellant was not party to the contract. The period of

contract is over and the appellant has no locus whatsoever to

seek extension of the contract in which it was not a party.

5. We have heard the parties on admission.

6. We find substance in the objection taken by the other

side. Learned Single Judge also opined that the appellant does

not have the locus standi because it was only either an agent or

a service provider and not the main contractor. At this stage,

when contract period is already over, at the instance of the

appellant, no mandamus can be issued for extension or renewal

of contract. The admission is declined. However, this order will

not come in the way of the appellant to prefer fresh application

for grant of contract, if law so permits.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J

Date: 17.02.2025 Myk/Tsr